Preferences

I'm not sure about LLC, need to check.

What I know, from my fortunately tiny exUSSR accounting practice (greetings from Ukraine!), investments to capital cannot be expensed.

Instead, these costs have to be capitalized and amortized (but exists some not too wide spectrum of variants, how exactly capitalization payments will be distributed - linear, and non-linear).

And usually this is not bad, because, when you for example buy building for office, without capitalize, you have to immediately pay taxes for all it's cost. But with capitalize you'll pay taxes on amortization payments.

I don't know, why R&D programming (engineering) before considered as expenses, but technically govt is right, they are really investments.

For material actives, like buildings all these are important, because investments could be huge, and also large risks, building could become unprofitable.

For example in Japan, now, when you found building, you have to create special fund (and fill with money), which will cover all annihilation costs, including expenses of third persons and return terrain to some approved state after building become unprofitable.

From other side, all these could open new opportunities for insurance business, to insure investments on R&D programming. As now, officials recognize R&D programming as investment.


However, wages are considered operational expenses in most sane places - this change moves them to capital expenses, which makes no sense.
simne OP
Could you provide examples of such sane places?
Wages are operational expenses in Poland for most cases - there are few (rare) exceptions where portions of wages might be considered part of increase in value of "material item" and thus fall under amortization rules - however those are minority and the general rules are that worker's wages are operational expenses (as wages paid to worker do not translate directly into capital wealth of the company).
simne OP
Do you have any examples, which are closer to G7 level?

I respect achievements of Poland, but at the moment, we should consider it as young country, and for such countries science don't have evidences that they will continue their success after nearest 5-10 years.

For young countries, unfortunately, very typical, to make few brave steps, and then pause development for indefinitely long time. Even possible few reverse steps.

So, Poland success, is sure hard work, but from scientific view, it is not supported by strong foundations and should be considered as fortune.

United Kingdom for example.

I just used the place I was most well versed in.

This item has no comments currently.